12-2 NM through a hole

Status
Not open for further replies.
stickboy1375 said:
I like to think my work is top notch , but dont think I'm drilling 1 hole per wire.. or 3 or 4 for that matter;) :grin:
Click to expand...

But why would anyone want to drill 3 or 4 holes for one wire?:grin: :D
 
If you have more than 2 cables running through a single hole in wood frame construction, then you have the potential of clogging the wire and allowing residual electrons to build up, much like a clot. If these clots occur, eventually they will spill out of the receptacles and imagine the hazard of all these electrons falling out onto the carpet. I believe that many house fires are started by this very situation. It has to be true since that is what happens when my plumbing drain lines get plug, same theory is it not? Residual electrons, crack me up!!!
 
I like inspector102's post, to me it highlights what 8 pages of "discussion" did not. Why are we all so focused on whether or not this install as in the picture posted violates any code, but nobody seems to be questioning as to whether or not it is somehow dangerous to do it like in the picture?
 
codedude said:
E3605.4.4 ? where more than two NM cables containing two or more current carrying conductors pass thru wood framing that is to be fire or draft stopped , the ampacity of these conductors must now be adjusted per table E3605.3
This "new" code section in the 2006 IRC would limit the # of wires passing thru a hole unless the ampacity was adjusted and figured into the installation. This is something inspectors do not generally do in the field so it might be safe to say there is a limit on how many wires can pass thru certain holes. At least thats the way I see it.
Only two cables passing thru one hole is O.K., It was found that with more than two cables there is a potential for excessive build up of heat.
This would apply to electrical penetrations thru fire blocks, draft stops, and thru top plates. (code commentary)
Click to expand...

The study done was flawed. The methodology was posted on this forum if I am not mistaken. If you search google hard enough you will probably be able to find a study that has found that drinking a gallon of gasoline a day will prevent cancer. In reality there are millions of dwellings in the country with more than two cables going thru a hole in a top plate that have not caught fire because of it. That simple fact however seems to have been completely overlooked or ignored in the passing of codes that prevent the practice.
 
I agree with Nemo that last hole has Cat5 in it. Does that not violate code as running within 6 inches of a branch circuit or is it now 12 inches of separation for lv and power wires?
 
srblx said:
I agree with Nemo that last hole has Cat5 in it. Does that not violate code as running within 6 inches of a branch circuit or is it now 12 inches of separation for lv and power wires?
Click to expand...

Not sure if this applies, but look at Art. 800.133(A)(2) which requires 2" separation. I've never heard of 6" or 12". This would be very hard to accomplish. :smile:
 
There is no code rule that states no more than 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 NM cable thru a hole.
There is a code rule that states you must derate in a raceway longer than 24". But a bored hole in a 2x4 is neither a raceway or a nipple.
Perhaps when we had NM not NM-B and it was 60 Deg rated is where the myth came from.
 
lpelectric said:
I've never heard of 6" or 12". This would be very hard to accomplish. :smile:
Click to expand...

I believe you'll find this in EIA-569. EMI sources (lighting, electrical wiring, etc.) can wreak havoc on LAN cabling and data transmission. I've personally seen LAN cabling draped across fluorescent lighting cause anomalies on a user's network connectivity and once the cable was relocated all problems stopped.

True CAT6 networks are even more susceptible to interference because of their high data transmission rates. "True" meaning not just CAT6 cable but CAT6 switches, routers, etc..
 
bhsrnd said:
I believe you'll find this in EIA-569. EMI sources (lighting, electrical wiring, etc.) can wreak havoc on LAN cabling and data transmission. I've personally seen LAN cabling draped across fluorescent lighting cause anomalies on a user's network connectivity and once the cable was relocated all problems stopped.

True CAT6 networks are even more susceptible to interference because of their high data transmission rates. "True" meaning not just CAT6 cable but CAT6 switches, routers, etc..
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I didn't set out to learn anything today, but you got me! :smile:
 
bhsrnd said:
I believe you'll find this in EIA-569. EMI sources (lighting, electrical wiring, etc.) can wreak havoc on LAN cabling and data transmission. I've personally seen LAN cabling draped across fluorescent lighting cause anomalies on a user's network connectivity and once the cable was relocated all problems stopped.

True CAT6 networks are even more susceptible to interference because of their high data transmission rates. "True" meaning not just CAT6 cable but CAT6 switches, routers, etc..
Click to expand...

I misspoke the other day. I meant to say "gigabit networks" and NOT "CAT6 networks". The data transmission rate is higher with a gigabit network as opposed to a 100MB network. I must have been asleep at the wheel.
 
lpelectric said:
Not sure if this applies, but look at Art. 800.133(A)(2) which requires 2" separation. I've never heard of 6" or 12". This would be very hard to accomplish. :smile:
Click to expand...
The separation is for conductors, not cables. If you accept that Cat 5 cable can be run in the same bored hole as rigid conduit, then its allowed for NM cable, as both are chapter 3 wiring methods.
Its not a violation but its not recommended. But the NEC is a safety standard
 
stew said:
i dont think derating is a problem . you must have 24 inches or more of bundling before you have to derate right?
Click to expand...

stew, if I'm not mistaken the way 2008 334.80 is worded, the 24" rule will not apply with romex cables thru holes that are "filled"(caulked, etc)
 
augie47 said:
stew, if I'm not mistaken the way 2008 334.80 is worded, the 24" rule will not apply with romex cables thru holes that are "filled"(caulked, etc)
Click to expand...

This is correct. If you have two NM cables that contain 2 or more current carrying conductor penetrating the same hole that is caulked, foamed etc. than the derating is in effect and the except to 310.15(A)(2) does not apply.
 
12-2 nm thru hole

12-2 nm thru hole

Ampacity adjustment only applys if thermal insulation, sealing foam, or caulking material is installed in these holes. If there is no draft stopping or fire stopping it does not apply. NEC 2008 334.80
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top